Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's no-write/no-research claim largely restates structured data. It does add one non-redundant detail, that the read targets the *latest saved* revision, but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or what happens when no revision exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with what it returns and what it does not do both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it already hints at them (latest revision plus full review). Nested-object targeting and study-resolution behavior are covered by the schema, so only the lack of any alternative-routing leaves a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested study object includes precedence rules (id over name, omit for active Study) plus the required draftPlanId. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Reads") and resource ("one draft" plan), and specifies scope: the latest saved revision plus the full review. It does not name the sibling it is distinct from (render_study_plan, revise_study_plan, list_study_drafts), so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The negative constraints ("Creates or changes nothing and starts no research") imply this is the read-only counterpart to revise_study_plan/start_study_run, but no alternative is named and no condition for choosing it is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.